HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SIDHARTH PUNIA

-THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24.1.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari whereby while allowing the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite parties to issue the allotment letter to the complainant of the site in question within one month after the receipt of the copy of the order.

PUT shortly, the facts of the case as set out in the complaint are that the highest bid of the complainant in respect of the site No. 213 located in Sector-5, Rewari in an open auction held on 20.8.2004 as per advertisement published in the newspaper by the opposite parties was accepted. Against the reserve price of Rs. 9,33,667, the complainant had deposited 10% of the bid amount vide receipt No. 34142 dated 2.8.2004 at the spot which was accepted by the opposite parties. The opposite parties had assured the complainant that the allotment letter would be issued to him within a period of one month. Instead of issuing the allotment letter to him, the opposite parties returned the deposited amount of Rs. 1,01,700 along with a letter bearing memo No. 1216 dated 21.2.2005. Aggrieved by the refund made, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum seeking directions against the opposite parties to issue the allotment letter of the site in question and also to pay Rs. 3 lacs as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint till realization along with litigation expenses. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that as no allotment letter had been issued to the complainant and he being not allottee, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. They justified the refund of the deposited amount vide cheque No. 642299 dated 10.2.2005 and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and issued the directions in its order noticed above. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed. Learned Counsel representing the parties have been heard at length.

While assailing the order of the District Forum, it has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties that the District Forum had not taken into consideration Clause-6 of the Terms and Conditions of the auction which were duly published by the opposite parties and that condition specifically provided that the auction shall be subject to the approval of the authority with further right to reject the bid made without any reason. Learned Counsel representing the complainant had disputed that the opposite parties had no right to enforce this clause because this was not the condition of auction. It appears that the stand taken from the side of the complainant, as such, cannot be accepted on the face of record. Clause-6 of the terms and conditions of auction commercial site located in Sector-5, Rewari stipulates as under: "The Presiding Officer shall reserve to himself right to accept the bid subject to approval of the authority or to reject any bid or withdraw any property from auction on the spot without assigning any reasons."

IN terms of the above stated clause the opposite parties had not accorded any approval and had returned the deposited amount through cheque No. 642299 dated 10.2.2005. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite parties had acted arbitrarily because the rejection of the bid or withdraw of any property from auction without assigning reason was the specific condition of auction which the complainant cannot avoid and as such no vested right had accrued to the complainant simply because he had deposited 10% of the bid money at the time of acceptance of the bid in an open auction held on 20.8.2004. The District Forum has not given due consideration to all these aspects and for that reason the impugned order cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons while accepting the appeal the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is accordingly dismissed. Appeal allowed.